On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:00:40PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:36:47PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Benchmarking shows that on resume we spend quite a bit of time
> > just taking and dropping these references, leaving us two options;
> > either rewriting the code not to take these references more than
> > once, which would be a rather invasive change since the involved
> > functions are used from other places, or to optimise
> > intel_runtime_pm_{get,put}(). This patch does the latter.
> > Initial benchmarking indicate improvements of a couple
> > of milliseconds on resume.
> >
> > Original patch by Chris, with slight fixes by me.
> >
> > v2: Fix missing return value (Patchwork)
> > Remove extra atomic_dec() (Chris)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weineh...@linux.intel.com>
> > CC: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Imre Deak <imre.d...@linux.intel.com>
>
> I'm happy with this. Not amused that it apparently saves quite a bit of
> overhead with frequent pm_runtime calls.
We could eliminate some of those calls entirely by moving them from
intel_display_power_{get,put}() into the always on well enable/disable
hooks. But I'm not sure how much this overhead originates from the power
well code as opposed to some gem/etc. stuff.
>
> Imre?
> -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
